[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand publication of Kayentavenator elysiae



I understand that peer review is not necessary. My comment was meant to express that dissertations should be viewed somewhat like an unpublished manuscript.

Dan


Mike Taylor wrote:
On 11 June 2010 03:06, Dan Chure <danchure@easilink.com> wrote:
Actually, I agree with the decision that dissertations are not valid outlets
for nomenclatorial actions.  Those should go through the regular peer review
process and be published in the appropriate journal.

Dan, remember that the ICZN does not care one whit about peer-review;
only about availability.  To quote the relevant articles from Chapter
3 ("Criteria of Publication") once more:

---- start quote ---
Article 8. What constitutes published work. A work is to be regarded
as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature if it
complies with the requirements of this Article and is not excluded by
the provisions of Article 9.

8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:

8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and
permanent scientific record,

8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by
purchase, and

8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing
simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous
identical and durable copies.
---- end quote ---

Unfortunately, these criteria (as well as omitting peer-review) are
ALL fluffy enough to allow plenty of wiggle-room.  8.1.1 is
particularly problematic as it hinges on someone's _intention_ rather
than what they actually did; 8.1.2 is odd: "free of charge or by
purchase" seems to cover all possibilities, so it adds nothing and the
clause is equivalent to "it must be obtainable when first issued", but
it's not at all clear what "obtainable" covers.  And 8.1.3 hinges on
the vague meanings of "simultaneously", "numerous" and "identical".

All this proves is that it's impossible to nail down intentions in a
form of words (which is why we have lawyers).  About the only things
that the ICZN rules do make clear, in fact, is that peer-review is not
a factor, and that "text or illustrations distributed by means of
electronic signals (e.g. by means of the World Wide Web)" are not
"published" (Article 9.8).

-- Mike.



My point was that if
dissertations are not  a valid venue then how in the hell can self
publication via Lulu Press or other similar outlets even be debated as
acceptable.

Dan

Jaime Headden wrote:
 So, a question arises:

 If dissertations of any stripe are considered legitimate publications,
why? Are they works intended for the purpose of a public record? Many
institutions at least restrict access or embargo their student's
dissertations at all levels, making their contents "secret." This violates
the idea of public availability, and would remove those institutions'
dissertations from the list of acceptable publications, even though they
_are_ publications in previously defined definitions of the term.

 If a dissertation is meant to be preliminary, but produces terminology
that can otherwise compete for priority or usage, such as geologic or
taxonomic nomenclature (that it produces this nomenclature in keeping with
the ICZN, for example, or the IUGS), can it be permitted if the author
indicates that he would otherwise publish this work?

 Can we retroactively consider dissertations to be published for the
purposes of nomenclature or discussion, even when they are cites for the
latter but not the former today, or are we restricted to dissertations only
produced after the point at which they are considered viable?

 If a dissertation is peer-reviewed, does it go through the same anonymous
review a paper in _Nature_ or _Palaeontology_ does, or is its review
restricted to a panel hearing the oral presentation (if present), the review
committee, and the acknowledged draft reviewers before the fact? Is this
type of anonymous review required if the dissertation is meant only to be
preliminary?

 Some, if not most, institutions in Europe hold their student's these and
dissertations from the public, while those in the US are publically
deposited and can be acquired at personal cost from a storage facility. Are
only US dissertations available for the purpose of nomenclature, or can we
just make this international and force the institutions of other countries
to follow suit? Do we have the right of it, or they?

 These are all issues that plague dissertations and are, I think, the
reason dissertational nomenclature is not considered viable for the purposes
of the ICZN. I am willing to be corrected on this, if I've gotten anything
here wrong. Note that I am not arguing that dissertations _should_ be
excluded, but as it stands, some of them are treated differently than
others, based on their home institutions or country's rules and laws.

Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a
Billion Backs)





----------------------------------------

From: mike@indexdata.com
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:16:05 +0100
Subject: Re: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand
publication of Kayentavenator elysiae
To: danchure@easilink.com
CC: qi_leong@hotmail.com; tijawi@yahoo.com; dinosaur@usc.edu

On 10 June 2010 13:07, Dan Chure  wrote:

I find it somewhat ironic that names in a dissertation which have gone
through the peer review of a committee and a copy of which can be
obtained
either by purchase or sometimes free from either Dissertations
International
or the degree awarding institution are not considered published in an
acceptable publication. but those self published  through  Lulu Press
are.

What he said.

The non-"published" status of a freely available dissertation is a
complete nonsense.

It'll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.




Dan

Jaime Headden wrote:

 I tend to regard nomina nuda as validly published nomenclature that do
not otherwise satisfy the ICZN's requirements for publication as nomina
valida. That is, were *Quetzalcoatlus northropi* published without a
concurrent description or photo, but in a legitimate venue, it would be
a
nomen nudum. The same cannot be said of Pickering's taxa, since the
ICZN
specifically indicates that the lack of satisfaction for two of its
requirements means that names he produced aren't even recognized nomina
of
any sort. While both Mortimer and Olshevsky regard these taxa as nomina
nuda, I don't regard them as nomina at all. And not to rag on Mortimer
and
Olshevsky too much, but there are names that are effectively
_nicknames_ of
specimens that are used as nomina nuda, and the latter even argues for
dissertation-produced names for being nomina, nuda or otherwise,
despite the
ICZN restricting dissertations from the list of acceptable
publications.
 So there are really three levels to this:

 1. Published terminology that roughly corresponds to a label for
something, be it a clade or a specimen, used as taxonomy. These are not
nomina of any sort.

 2. Published terminology that meets some but not all of the ICZN's
requirements. These are nomina nuda or nomina vana, depending on the
usage.

 3. Published terminology that meets all of the ICZN's requirements.
These
are nomina valida (unless set aside for formal reasons -- rejecta -- or
forgotten through disuse or disregard -- oblita).

 A fourth category, should we feel inclined, lies between 1 and 2 (call
it
1.5) which corresponds to _lapsus calami_, and are not considered
nomina
nuda or anything, and cannot compete for priority or be useful for
elevation
of status, without special action in cases where two names are
potential
lapses for one another.

Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a
Billion Backs)





----------------------------------------


Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 16:54:41 -0700
From: tijawi@yahoo.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
CC: tijawi@yahoo.com
Subject: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand
publication of Kayentavenator elysiae

Jaime Headden  wrote:




As noted by Tim, Pickering's works are produced in a
fashion that prohibits access to them, a clear violation of
two of the ICZN's requirements for publication
(accessibility, and deposition), and by this reason are
regarded by the majority (if not all but a very small
number) of workers.


I really didn't think that *anyone* accepts Pickering's proposed new
genera ("Walkersaurus") and species ("Elaphrosaurus philtippetensis",
"Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum", etc) as valid. Even George Olshevsky,
who
has erected several dinosaurs names via self-publication, regards
Pickering's names as nomina nuda (e.g., see
http://www.polychora.com/dinolist.html).


Pickering's self-published 'works' typically take the form of paranoid
rants that cover a wide range of topics, from national socialism to
Sigmund
Freud to King King; the new dinosaur names are inserted as a kind of
afterthought. However, neither the deplorable and self-indulgent
quality of
his works, nor the fact that the works were self-published, are the
reasons
why Pickering's names are universally held to be nomina nuda. As Jaime
says,
it is because Pickering made no attempt to establish a permanent
scientific
record. It appears that his 'works' (newsletters) were sent
unsolicited to
various paleontologists (and others, such as Steven Spielberg), and
therefore qualify only as private correspondence.


Thus, when Roger Benson erected the new genus _Duriavenator_ for
_Megalosaurus hesperis_, the fact that Pickering had previously named
the
same species "Walkersaurus" had no impact at all on priority, because
"Walkersaurus" was a nomen nudum.


Nevertheless, it is a frightening thought that if Pickering had
bothered
to deposit his 'works', and made them accessible, that we might have
been
stuck with all his horrible monikers ("Elaphrosaurus philtippetensis",
and
so on). Then again, the more likely outcome is that subsequent workers
would
have ignored his plethora of names in their own publications - w
o have happened anyway.


Cheers

Tim








 _________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from
your
inbox.


http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2






 _________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with
Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5